OBU Research Project: Criterion 3 and Failure Examples

Further to my previous blog, I have decided to start with the failure examples from criterion 3, i.e. amongst the most criticized criteria by OBU research project markers. Criterion 3 relates to ‘evaluation of information, analysis, and conclusions’ and there are four grades associated with it.

Grade A is awarded to those submissions which reflect a high level of critical thought in the analysis and a rigorous approach to the evaluation of information.

Grade B is awarded to those submissions which show strength in some areas of critical review of the information along with good evaluation of information.

Grade C is awarded to the submissions with some analysis but a tendency towards description rather than analysis and evaluation. 

Grade F is selected for submissions that are descriptive and lacking in analysis with inaccuracies and little or no critical evaluation.

This post covers the examiner remarks on criterion 3 for ‘Grade F’ submissions only. The words in ‘red’ are the actual words of the OBU marker with students' anonymity ensured.

Examiner Remarks 1: Because your communication and presentation are poor, it is hard to determine whether you have met the required standard in analysis. Certainly, in the competitor analysis section of your report there are many parts where you just recite long lists of numbers without explaining clearly the underlying cause of changes and explaining the differences between the two companies.

Learning Outcomes 1:

·         There should not be frequent grammatical errors or diffused analysis sections. The use of graphs / charts at appropriate places enhances the presentation.

·         There should be a cause-and-effect relationship evident in the financial analysis section, where ‘causes’ are more likely to be business factors rather changes in some other numerical figures. This is further supplemented by ‘Examiner Remarks 2’.

Examiner Remarks 2: You have not fully understood what is required for analysis. You are providing sources and evidence of research on some occasions but too often you are making unreferenced statements or basing your analysis upon movements in other aspects of the accounts. For instance, you say "Net profit margin has also improved in FYXX by almost two percentage point as compared to last financial year. The main reason for this was significantly decline in Distribution cost by 41%. Key factor behind that, there was a massive drop in freight and handling charges " You are making a statement here but not referencing the source and not digging deep enough.

Learning Outcomes 2:

·         Referencing must be thoroughly applied throughout the RAP. There should not be some unreferred sections.

·         Again, there should be some business reason behind the KPI change, rather numerical change in some other figure. All the reasons / causes must be properly referenced.

·         Candidate should be able to differentiate, whether KPI change was affected by the external business environment or was it because of the business decisions / strategies of the company. This will reflect the evidence of digging deep enough in the analysis section.

Examiner Remarks 3: Your financial analysis is heavily dependent on corporate documentation and you mention these sources only at the beginning of your analysis however every time you are using these should be referencing within your text. As it stands, the reader has to assume that everything you are saying is coming from corporate sources. You need to be clearer and more definite about your referencing.

Your business analysis needs to be improved. The WEAKNESS section within your SWOT is a series of statements with no links to strategic issues facing the company. The opportunities and threats sections of your SWOT and your PESTEL analysis give you opportunity to explore the business decisions and strategies within the context of the economic environment within which the business is operating however your analysis is too insular and reads as a series of points from the annual report.

Learning Outcomes 3:

         Again, referencing must be thoroughly applied throughout the RAP. However, candidate should not quote the single / same source at frequent places in the report. Referencing from multiple sources shows an evidence of wider research.

     Listing of factors under SWOT / PESTEL should be finalized after considering their relative importance / strategic value.

    Again, the examiner expects the candidates to try to explore the organization’s business decisions in the context of general economic environment.

Examiner Remarks 4: Your research questions are personal objectives. Research questions should indicate what you want to learn about the organization. You began well with your analysis in the ratios but as this section progressed the discussion became more descriptive and relied heavily on the annual reports of companies only.

Learning Outcomes 4:

      Inappropriate research objectives / research questions can also lead to failure. Due attention must be given to all the three parts of RAP. RAP should be scrutinized against all the nine assessment criteria, prior to submission.

Just a good start is not enough, a prudent approach should be thoroughly reflected in the RAP.

Examiner Remarks 5: There is complete lack of referencing in competitor analysis and you are required to demonstrate an adequate skill in referencing as without good systematic referencing throughout your report we cannot distinguish between your work and that of others. You need to widen your information sources. A good place to start to look at corporate strategy would be a closer reading of the discursive parts of the financial statements and company websites. You should also source more industry information, for example from trade journals. Your work is poorly referenced in competitor analysis area. I am happy with referencing in other areas of analysis.

Learning Outcomes 5:

·         Again, referencing must be thoroughly applied throughout the RAP. Further, over-reliance on a single source must be avoided.

     The careful readers should be able to discover a routine pattern and characteristics, common in failed submissions, and avoid these in their own submission.

Please like Research Cabin for further useful insights!

Khalique Ur Rehman, is a registered research mentor with Oxford Brookes University.

khalique.ia@gmail.com      0092 336 417 9848